tv Vice Presidential Candidate Selection Process Panel 2 CSPAN April 26, 2016 4:01am-5:01am EDT
poll had us three points ahead. in other words, in the margin of error. with senator obama. the next day lehman brothers went under. the great financial stacrisis started. and two weeks later we were 12 points down which had nothing to do with mccain, but it was -- you know, luck of the draw. >> i know there are more questions there. but we are going to wrap this panel and then take a -- we're not going to break the room here. we'll take a quick change of the people on stage and move to the next but i want to thank all of you here and all of the task force people for a great report. so thank you. [ applause ] . >> there he is. >> here she comes. >> all right. welcome back. i'm john fortier, the director of the democracy project here at
the bipartisan policy center. this is a second panel of our day on the release of a report. selecting a vice president. advice for vice presidential candidates. our report for bpc's working group for vice presidential selection. i have announced the members of the working group in the beginning and introduced them. we had some on the first panel. we have some more here today with maria cino and mandy raveles and ben ginsberg. but we're also joined by joel goldstein who's the country's leading expert on the vice presidency. professor of law at st. louis university. and the author of several books and many articles on the vice presidency but also the author of a book that has just come out, the most recent off the presses, "the white house vice presidency: the path to significance mondale to biden." and i recommend this book to all of you. it's actually for sale outside. there are many, many virtues of this book about the vice presidency itself, history, the selection process, and i will note it might be the only book about the vice presidency that does not mention john garner's
famous characterization of the vice presidency but the -- which i will not repeat here. but i guess you could say the book is a bucket full of warm thoughts about the vice presidency. deep and warm thoughts. so what i'd like to do on this panel is talk about the recommendations but also talk about the vice presidency and deeper history. and since we have joel here maybe i can begin with joel. and joel, just -- we have two big questions here. sun is the role of the vice president has changed very significantly over time. your book is the modern most important time for the vice presidency, beginning with walter mondale. can you give us just a quick overview of how the role of the vice presidency has changed within an administration? >> sure. painting with a real broad brush, for most of our history the vice presidency was really a legislative officer.
and that was really true up through the vice presidency of alvin barkley by and large, president truman's vice president. beginning with the nixon vice presidency in 1953, the vice presidency really moved into the executive branch. the vice president spent more time in the executive branch doing political things for president than he did presiding over the senate. and i think that was really -- and the focus of the office really during that period was on presidential succession. it was having somebody who was plausibly prepared to be a presidential successor. and generally, vice presidents were doing things in the executive branch but they were pretty peripheral to the center of the executive branch. which really was the carter-mondale administration, that the vice presidency moves into the white house physically but also becomes part of the center of the presidency.
and i think through the last 40 years the six administrations since then, the vice president in each case has been a senior presidential adviser and troubleshooter who's taken on different roles in different administrations but has taken on significant roles in each of the six administrations. >> so i'm going to come back to you a little bit about the history of the vice presidential selection process. i want to jump into some of our working group members. maria, you have long experience with conventions. in fact, you ran the republican convention in 2008. we talk in the report about recommendations, about the rollout of the vp. but the conventions have all sorts of -- they're always lurking there in the background when you make the choice. they're ultimately the body that is going to approve the choice presumably or make the choice of the vice president. and joel can talk about the history, how that was actually much more the case in the long ago history. but talk a little bit about the consideration of the convention, when nominees are picking their
vice presidential choices are they thinking about the convention, how the convention typically rolls out. i know we have perhaps an unusual year. i can get to that too. but just in a usual year what's the role of the convention and the vp selection process? >> well, it's a very interesting question. obviously, the conventions play a significant role, although i'm not sure that anyone realizes the significance. i think probably ben and i have had a little bit of experience. once the convention nominates a vice president and a president, probably the most important thing we do is that thursday night. sometimes thursday morning the nominee who's just been nominated has to sign all the paperwork to get on every ballot. and people don't know what goes into the making of a president. but that is most significant. i think ben and i on many occasions have had a little sweat from our brow figuring out how we're going to get somebody from new york to l.a. and make sure there are -- or sacramento.
and filing the correct paperwork. there's a lot of technical stuff that goes into it. i think the unique thing with regards to the vice presidential nominee is where we are today on the republican side. i know you want to talk in general. but right now we have moved the convention arguably six to seven weeks up. so it has moved up. in addition to the fact that on the republican side at least it's likely that we may not have an actual nominee. and the traditional thing that happens is after the primaries, sometimes before all the primaries are over, you have a presumptive nominee. and that person plays a significant role or has staff that will play obviously a significant role with everything from, for example, the layout, the design of the convention. they want their stamp on that. they have a say in speakers, the program, the order of the convention, what the actual stage is going to look like because that's a part of their persona. what's interesting, at least on
the republican side, now is that there may not be a person from a presidential campaign that will actually have a stamp. there may be two or three potential nominees. but even things as simple as hotels, hotel space, there's a lot of stuff that goes into putting the whole thing together. so this is going to be extremely interesting as time goes on, especially for the convention manager, which i'm happy to say is not me. [ laughter ] >> one spot we talked about earlier, so give the audience a sense that when is the time frame for the typical speech after having been nominated, or confirmed by the convention, and what might we have to think about if we don't have the typical convention? >> absolutely. well, probably as they're fighting -- potential nominees are fighting for everything from space in the convention hall to hotels and transportation, the interesting thing for the republican side, i believe on
the democrat side also is that traditionally the vice president is nominated on wednesday night and the president then is nominated on thursday. so it will be extremely interesting if we don't have a candidate by wednesday, how the process will change. at least as long as i can remember. and ben's memory may be better. but at least as long as i can remember that's the order we have always used. so this could change. the whole outcome. >> ben, you've had experience with this too. talk -- well, again, reflections on the role of the convention generally and then maybe in this year that it might be a little different. >> well, our recommendations will be stress tested in a way we never could have envisioned by potentially this year. well, the convention is obviously something where you want a great feeling of unification and camaraderie to emerge. and part of the way -- and good
television ratings, i might add. and part of the way the conventions have dealt with the television ratings part is the recognition that roll calls are an audience killer. so a couple of things happen. first of all, the presidential roll call has become a rolling roll call since 2000. so we do about a third of the states on monday, a third on tuesday, a third on wednesday, joyous celebration when the candidate goes over the top on wednesday, roll right into the vice presidential pick at that point. there's been a rule since i think '88 or '92 that says if there's only one candidate put in nomination, the convention can pass them by acclimation. there is a contest for the vice president that provides you with another roll call on wednesday night that throws off the timing that maria talked about. and the whole process of
selecting the candidate is usually done and known. so there's not a surprise factor in the naming of the vice presidential candidate. should it turn out to be a contested convention and you're a campaign, do you want to name your vice presidential candidate well in advance to be able to coalesce your support or in fact do you want to save that naming of the person for the convention to be able to amass a coalition under stress conditions? so the convention could play a real role this time. >> let me turn to danny. i know one of the things you stressed in our deliberations was about ways of thinking about picking a vp as the private sector might or as people who are thinking about filling important jobs in other realms would be. do you want to say something about the role some of that could play for candidates or whether -- what kind of criteria we might consider in thinking
about the vp? >> well, thanks very much, john. let me start off by saying i really have appreciated the opportunity to be a part of this. for me it was totally novel. i've had the opportunity to watch bob bauer's career from a distance and the arc of his public service and legal career. so to have a chance to be a part of this was really special. i appreciate the bipartisan policy institute is doing this. because i think it really truly is an extraordinary public service. i have never -- i was probably the only person on the panel who's never been part on the inside of the vice presidential selection process. as john has mentioned, outside on corporate boards or on charitable boards i have been part of the process of executive recruitment and development. and i think the first thing that really struck me about this from listening to the wonderful
stories, by the way -- i'm just sorry we're barred from repeating any of them. was how complex this really was. how much tougher this really was. the political elements. the social media elements. the vetting elements. the confidentiality elements. all of these things, you know, brought a level of complexity to this that far exceeds i think almost any other selection process that i'm aware of. i guess the analogy for me is somebody says that a jet engine is something that has 10,000 moving pieces and every one of them has to work every time. and this is i think a process that has 10,000 moving pieces and if something goes wrong it can have an awful lot of very unfortunate impacts. in that regard i guess two things have struck me. first of all, i think that there
may be a role for some input from people who do have experience in the executive recruitment process, et cetera, and other things. particularly when things are in a hurry, as they are right now. because they do have experience in framing things, in asking questions. even personality charts on how people are likely to fit together and work with others. so i think all of those things are useful. they have checklists. and when people are in a hurry, whether it's in an operating room or in a cockpit, i think having a checklist is occasionally useful. so one of the things that i would think about on it is either within the team having somebody with that experience as you're going through it or assigning somebody on your internal team to go talk with the executive recruiters, the head hunters. you're going to have to put up with their view that they could probably pick a better president than the electorate does.
and that's the first thing you'll hear from them. beyond that they may have some useful input. particularly looking at this timeline, i am reminded that -- and i think that at least a central lesson for me out of this exercise is i was with my granddaughter on wednesday and i was trying to explain to her what we were going to be doing today and she said oh, she says i get it, we learned in school, she said failure to plan is planning to fail. and i said i think that kind of hits what it is. so whatever toes you can get into planning i think is a useful thing. >> let me turn back to joel. let me ask you to now sketch out a little bit more of the longer arc of history of the vice presidential selection process. especially we talked about the convention just now. and the convention has always played a part -- or not always but back to the 1830 >> but it obviously hasn't been democratic.
we moved into a new era where the candidate was the primary person. if you sketch out for us how has the vice president been over the years and how is the change in it in the importance of the vice president in office. >> for most of our history the convention really played the major role in selecting the vice presidential candidate and the party leaders would often times get together and try to placate the faction of the party that had lost the presidential nomination. they would try to engage in geographical balancing, ideological balancing or whatever. so often times you would end up with the presidential and vice presidential candidates didn't agree on nature issues. they didn't know each other. the vice presidential candidate wasn't beholden to the presidential candidate because he wasn't the person that selected him. that started to change in 1940 when fdr ran for the third term
and needed a condition of running for a third term that the delegates would accept henry wallace. there was tremendous opposition to wallace. eleanor roosevelt went to the convention to try to put him over. ultimately the delegates agreed to wallace but wallace was made with such animosity toward him. in 1940, still 1972 the process is pretty much at the convention once the presidential nomination people would celebrate and they would see the vice president and that's when they would get together. in 1976 the democratic party and
the fact that presidential nominees were being chosen by primaries and caucuses. which tended to accelerate and president ford's nomination went to the convention but he started doing vetting while he was still competing with governor reagan so that was the process that began in 76 of doing this vetting that took place once the nomination was secure. the other significant change really took place on the democratic side in 1984 and republican side in 1996 and that was of announcing the vice presidential selection before the convention and it was a change for the convention
stopped being a place where you would wonder who would be the vice presidential nominee and there would be focus about who that might be until this decision was announced. instead, the choice was announced before the convention and the leader and a chance on either side. >> all sorts of great things in this book. i recommend it to you. we are recommending a process that takes a significant amount of time and to do it seriously, i want to focus on jimmy carter. he did something very different and it was a more extensive process and that was that in having these big public announcements of interviews and press conference with the potential people afterwards. do you want to say more about that? >> when governor carter, a number of people on the first panel made the point about this being the first presidential
decision that it was the first presidential decision. he invited the candidates down and he would meet with them privately and they would have a press conference. and it was all very transparent. this is in the immediate post watergate period and that was part of what was driving it. in 1984 the vice president tried to imitate the carter process and it got negative reviews. there was a feeling that it was embarrassing for people that weren't selected and since then it's all been done much more privately and much more quitely vetting lists of people being considered or typically become
known or at least many of the people who are considered become known so there's some discussion in the media and some public media vetting and so forth but the practice has been away from this sort of -- the public aspect of the carter and the process. >> so i want to turn a little bit to the vetting and turn and we have a recommendation that even the core vetting process really takes 8 weeks if you do it right. can you give us a little sense of what that process involved? we described the number of people and the stages of it. what you go through on a campaign to put people through the vetting process. >> it's a five step process basically.
i think the recommendations reflect it should be a small discreet group of people. probably not people with regular campaign duties i never saw the personal reports from the candidates. the structure of the process is step number one you need to see what the universe is. we come up with a very broad list of people to consider who might be compatible candidates. and research on. and it's hutch more than it might have been. you need to be sure that the statements from the different candidates are compatible with who your candidate is and the results can be sent to the narrowing of the list to a manageable number which historically has been five but some campaigns will go a little
more and a little less. then comes the part that is a truly sbusive document designed to get any possible weaknesses that you can today and your vice president just to prepare what might come that the folks on the first panel discussed. after a review of that personal information, financial, personal, just kind of everything you can think of then the candidate has to make the decision on who that person may be and there's somewhere in there a one-on-one conversation of someone representing a campaign and potential vice presidential candidates that
includes the well is there anything else we should know conversation then you have to decide. one last thing, there's people brought in and we have mixed recommendations that they're not just anyone but different aspects of people's backgrounds that you'll need specialists in. >> certainly in tax because you have to look at the paerns financial records. there may be medical issues so you'll have people trained in analyzing medical problems if a person is a lawyer you need to vet all the cases that that candidate has been involved in
if it's some other business with a record and a trail you need specialists to be able to go back and review that. if it's a senator or congressmen then they're a series of votes in congress that may not be discernable to your average person until a person gets ahold of it so that's when you need people that can understand the legislative process as well. >> need a mention that it's an easier thing to bring in someone that's run for president. they put themselves out there but that still doesn't exempt this person from going through the process. this is a process that the president or presidential candidate is not getting the same scrutiny as the vice presidential candidate.
fair enough? >> fair enough. stuff can happen in four years and number two you're running with a different candidate so the compatibility issues are very important on policy positions and maybe the country club so there's a whole range of personal and professional things that just come under a different glare and spotlight. >> maria, one part of the question i didn't ask you or get to is in a normal situation you're looking ahead, how much of a consideration is it to think can i get an unorthodoxed candidate through the convention? if i pick someone that's not a typical republican or democrat are the votes going to be there for me? you're somebody in the position to assess that for candidates. how often does that happen? . how often are they thinking about looking ahead and making sure that their choice is
accepted broadly to the party. >> with regards to the convention if you have a resumptive nominee there's been a lot of thought process gone in and if that's the nominee then it's a simple process. at least in my memory i don't recall it being a question. we talk about sarah palin and nobody knew that that was coming. that was one of the best kept secrets for several days because everyone was asking who is sarah palin but that was -- she was a governor but not known and not really taken any stance and i would just say that there's a lot of surprise but people were excited and the speech she gave on the floor that wednesday night was incredible.
you walk around waiting for something to go wrong and you're nervous because you want it to be over which is the sad part about it and i stood in a box and listened to her and you can hear a pin drop. there was an example and she certainly had no notoriety whatsoever. certainly spiralled out of control. they'll accept whoever the nominee puts forth in my past history. >> and joel do you want to say something more about the party role verses the candidate? >> obviously there was a strong
party role but how that evolved and how that still exists today? >> well, the party leaders used to drive the selection. typically in the 19th century, most of the early part of the 20th century wasn't even in the convention so it was the party bosses that would get together. sometimes it was somebody making a deal. we'll give you indiana's votes if you put thomas marshall on the ticket down the line if you get the nomination. it would be that sort of arrangement there would still be meetings with the leading party officials and the candidate
would meet with people so it was a democratic process in the sense that there was some consultation and liberation and so forth although ultimately was the candidate decision but as it's moved away from the convention beginning in 1976s been a process focused much more on the presidential candidate and the people around the presidential candidate they still go to capital hill and talk to governors and solicit input but ultimately it tends to be the presidential candidate and the few people close to them. >> i'm going to get our questioners ready and throw in a couple more questions and then we'll turn to the audience again we referred to we might have a
different kind of a year. especially on the republican side. we made recommendations that all the candidates should start now. start doing things now it takes time and it's helpful to take the time to do the right process. that said it might be how much they can get going. what are some of the considerations for candidates out there given that we don't have as normal of a situation but how can they still get going with some of the process so that they're not left with a very last minute process at the end? what can we tell them to get the most out of our recommendations even though it's not a normal year. saved the tough one for last. >> in the five step process you can do the first three steps. you can get the big list and do the public records research. you can narrow it down to the
five or so people on your short list. how you, i think it is really challenging for a candidate now if it's not known that that person is the nominee to be asking for the personal information from somebody that may be being looked at by the other campaigns as well and who in a couple of cases could be rivals down the road. so that part of the process which is actually the most difficult part of the process is one that may be some unique solutions to but i haven't heard them yet. >> you know if several of the nominees, especially those that may have actually delegates
there may be deals forged and announcements made ahead of time. how far ahead, i don't know but it's something that i haven't experienced before and it could be very interesting. whether it matters or not i'm not sure but several nominees actually come with delegates. >> so i'll let joel have the last word on this in term of history. what can we learn? the most contested convention is the 1924 contention. i lived with a 98-year-old physics professor and he used to tell me how he listened to that on the radio. 1924 and it went on for a long time and was big entertainment
but i don't remember it and you know how the vice president. anything we can learn and then thinking about it today. what kind of considerations if we're not going to pick the nominee in advance, what is a vice presidential selection. >> i think that the whole process is so different now. you have a long period of selection process and very public process that didn't exist then you have a media world that didn't exist back then. one of the important aspects of the preconvention process that developed is it gives people a time to recalibrate their ambitions and sort of look at political reality and accept the
fact that somebody is the nominee and now am i interested in being vice president or am i not interested in being vice president. this time if you're going to convention you're compressing it all into a few hours and i don't think there's any good precedents that i can recall right now. >> trying to help you out here. let us turn to the audience and we'll have mikes here and i'd like for you to identify yourself before the question. >> right in the middle in the back there. >> hi. we have been talking a lot about how the vice presidential hit could influence the voters but i'm wondering in the case of the republican convention whether it could influence the choice of
the presidential nominee. if trump says i'm going to pick them, i mean, will people look on the second ballot at the package? will it become more important than the presidential candidate? >> we haven't talked about the possibility that someone could pick in advance so take that. >> the comfort of not being with any of the current campaigns. i do think it's -- i'm not sure on the second ballot you would necessarily know who the vice presidential choice of the candidate was. i do think that the campaigns face a really interesting strategic and tactical choice on whether you name who your vice presidential nominee is going to be well in advance or you wait until the convention just in case there's a second ballot and
you do need to bring over delegates or is it the start of the second ballot? so if it actually goes to the contested convention i don't think it's at all clear. >> sort of model is the 1976 governor reagan announced about three weeks before the republican convention that his running mate would be senator richard who was probably the most liberal republican in the senate and governor reagan was out of moves to make to secure the nomination and he was hopeful this would swing support in the pennsylvania delegation but the other thing that he tried to do was to amend the
rules and it was to require that every presidential candidate indicate it in advance of the presidential balloting and that was to try to smoke up president ford's choice in the thought that if he named one person he would alienate the other people that wanted to be his running mate so the one risk of designating one person is you may effect your chance with the dell fwats that hope you'll pick somebody else. >> i was wondering if anybody would suggest a special episode of the apprentice. >> that's what we're going
through right now. >> okay. we'll go right here in the middle. >> linda cooper. i had a question that occurred to me in this discussion. we're talking about vetting and the vetting of the vice president. could you comment on the cut of personality of the situation we have now with the presidential candidates and how that effects the vetting process for the presidency? >> did you have a candidate in mind? >> no? all right, no. >> it's important. no matter which one of the five candidates you want to look at they'll all want somebody that they feel comfortable with and so no matter where those candidates fall on a personality scale in your mind they're still going to want somebody that's
compatib compatible. >> let's go to the middle and the second row. >> well i was going to go to you first but i'll get you both. >> i understand that nixon chose ago knew because he delivered the votes for maryland is that correct? i was just wondering if most of the candidates would try to keep their options open and if they got to a point where they needed a limited number of folks to put them over the top they might be willing to choose almost anyone willing to do it regardless of whether they vetted them much or not if they wanted to sew it up.
>> nixon i think chose ago knew not because he had turned over votes for him but i think he viewed him as the person that was most acceptable to the southern delegates. >> he was crucial in nixon getting the nomination and nixon was looking for somebody perceived as a centrist. he was vetoing people on the right like governor reagan and to the left like major lindsey and he viewed the governor as being more broadly acceptable. it started out the years and alienated with rockerfeller and so forth. maybe i can get you to repeat it. >> somebody sbi grating the vice president sy but you do refer to
how nixon referred to him. >> he started out impressed with him and over time he would complain that agnew wants meetings with me and that's not the way it works. the president doesn't meet with the vice president and that's not part of the job and he should go out there and give these speeches and so forth and when they were reelected in 1972, agnew really saw himself as being -- and he was the leader in the polls for 1976. he saw himself as being a serious presidential candidate and nixon wouldn't give him anything to do and finally he said to him why don't you be the chair of the commission to plan
the celebration and agnew didn't think that's what he had in mind. of course he was forced out of office soon after that but the transformation to what the office that we have now between say 73 when agnew was totally marginalized and 77 when walter mondale could walk into the oval office any time he wanted was really remarkable. the general election will come second. we'll really try to get the nomination from the delegates which would perhaps put the candidates in a situation where who they might be looking at for
vice president would be maybe a different situation and calculation than who that person would be in a general election for votes. >> good morning. i have a question for the panel specifically putting on their political lenses and looking at it if they were to be advising both of the candidates on both sides in their selection of their vice president currently. i'm looking at it really more of how might they be looking at certain states they might be interested in winning. there was a question earlier regarding women. how would you, if you were advicing both of the candidates on things to keep in mind and things they might be looking out for and selecting that? i know that even private sector experience would be interesting to hear about.
>> get as specific or general as you want. >> if you're going to be a serious presidential candidate and want to win what you need to project is that you're going to be a good president and i they there are people out there who on both sides would send the message that i'm really serious about being president. on the democratic side several folks could do that and transcend just their utility and in the last few elections the president did not pick joe biden in order to deliver the state of delaware. but he did something quite constructive and quite useful in terms of doing that and i hope that secretary clinton would do the same and i think that on the
republican side that there are those people. >> so we'll react to a few things. the person has to be somebody that can step into the role. of course there are political considerations and others but some of the pitfalls in the past have been candidates that think they're behind and do anything to shake up the race but another one out there and might be something that is. >> experienced candidates. maybe i can pick up very experienced and it balances you. if that person has the experience to be president and they're young that's great.
but there are pitfalls out there for all the candidates in their situation. >> nobody is listening to me except you anyhow. i think senator tim cain of virginia would be an outstanding vice presidential. he's been a major and a governor. he's now a senator. very serious person. and he has had the opportunity to look at people. he would be a sensational pick if secretary clinton was interested. >> i think you want to look for somebody that first and foremost is presidential and really is of the stach jurors that peel could perceive him or her sitting in
the oval office and even more right now you need them because if you don't have a vice president that can do the sort of things that the last six vice presidents have done you're giving up a huge governing asset but the running mate also has political significance. you're sending a message about the decision maker that you are. the other thing that's important to look to is are they vice presidential. anita made the point about how difficult it is for somebody that's been expressing their own views to step into a role of subordinate. somebody like joe biden, senator
for 36 years. chairman of two major committees and now all of a sudden he's the number two person and he has to adjust to that role. the vice president has to be a leader but also has to be able to follow and to be comfortable in that role and it's a difficult decision. >> we have time for one last question and we are going to go here. >> thanks. peter from the australian embassy. i'm trying to put myself in the shoes of people that might be asked or be on the short list for the vice president and looking at what might be a failing presidential campaign. in the history of campaigns, what's been the fate of vice
presidential candidates in campaigns that look like they're losing early on? has it been a good career move or bad career move? >> it's a terrific question because this discussion about 1972 earlier is one of the problems he had he asked a number of people to be his running mate and they all turned it down. many were close friends he served with in the senate. for a variety of reasons they didn't want to be on the ticket. so if you think about vice president and vice presidential candidates have done pretty well in lair later careers, representative ryan was speaker of the house. so you have able people with opportunities but a calculation
about how likely the ticket is to be successful and how you feel about working with the person at the top of the ticket. it is very much a personal relationship and the last six vice presidents have good personal relationships with the president but if it goes south early on its not going to be a very fun four years so they have to work at it and take that into account in deciding whether or not you want to put your name forward. >> with that we want to wrap up today. advice for presidential candidates. it's really good advice out there now.
>> this is the headline senator cruz and governor kasich devise a strategy to keep donald trump from clenching three primary states, indiana, new jersey, and oregon. joining us is sean sullivan following this story. thank you for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> what's behind this strategy? >> this is a strategy born out of desperation. they are looking at the remaining primary saying their chance keeps him from clenching the republican nomination out right and may be quickly disappearing but they have decided not to fight against each other in states where the other guy has a pretty good chance or at least a better chance of beating trump in a one-on-one race. and ted cruz is now effective
with trump after kasich said i'm not going to go hard and ted cruz conceded new mexico and oregon to john kasich. those states are favorable and he stands a better chance of being able to keep trump under those delegates. >> we'll know next week if it's effective. or is it too little too late for the cruz and kasich campaigns? >> that's what i'm hearing from a lot of people it was crowded
for a long time and it would have been harder to do something like this in january or february but there's an argument to be made that the field did have some kind of arrangement where certain candidates competed in certain states and didn't bother in other states. so you definitely need to hear more about why didn't this happen six weeks ago? >> it's an unusual and urgent arrangement. is there any precedence with this strategy? >> in recent history i can't think of anything. >> it's just unusual to come together beating another opponent and one thing that i think is important here is that this kind of thing fuels the argument that donald trump is
making day in and at a out which is the party establishment is going behind closed doors and they're trying to steel this from me and when you have something like this happen in plain view you have the campaigns saying it's exactly what we're doing. it adds fuel to the argument. >> that was my next question. he has been going after the republican party and this seems to feedight into that. >> it really does. up until now his complaints centered on the delegate battle which is not something that a lot of people understand. it's not something that political reporters like me even fully understand. but when you have two campaigns saying we're working together to take down trump it's much easier
to understand and digest and ultimately get angry about and become furious over. >> the indiana primary is next tuesday. the oregon primary is may 17th and the new mexico primary is on june 7th along with california so how is this all going to play out? >> if it plays out according to the plan set in motion what they'll have next week is a cruz victory in indiana and that's far from a sure bet and then you have oregon and new mexico so if kasich were to win those you have a situation depending on how california turns out you might keep trump under the magic number and california divides theirs up by congressional district. you have microprimaries across
the state. possible the state could split their delegates among kasich cruz and trump. so if they're successful you have trump somewhere below 1237 and not at 1227 or 1217 but somewhere below where they can make the case that this guy is not one who supports that he really needs to claim the nomination. >> finally in indiana today and covering senator ted cruz you mentioned one woman talked to you about her response to this strategy but what are you hearing from the campaign? the staff and those attending his events? >> they're hopeful this will work. in indiana there's an anxiety among cruz and his alabama lice about kasich and there was a pro cruz add.
clearly he was worried about kasich. they feel that with this development they can go to voters and say this is a one-on-one. it's a choice and even if they don't necessarily say that outloud. >> sean sullivan we'll look for you reporting online and in tomorrow's newspaper. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> madam secretary we proudly give 72 delegates to the next president of the united states.